Amendment One – A Dangerous Precedent for Florida

Amendment One – a proposal to collect $18B in documentary stamps over twenty years primarily for land acquisition – brings to our state several dangers that should raise serious questions with anyone concerned for good public policy regarding conservation and the growing role of government.

First, how much conservation land owned and controlled by government do we need?  Twenty-eight percent of Florida is already in conservation.  That’s more than one in four acres.  Add another 3% for government facilities and we have over 30% of our state owned and controlled by government.  According to the Sunshine State News, Florida has “more land under public ownership per square mile than any other east of the Mississippi.”  The spokeswoman for outgoing Senate President Don Gaetz issued this statement “The government already owns a large percentage of our state. President Gaetz does not believe in obligating the taxpayers of Florida to arbitrarily give government more control over land.”

Second, is it wise to insert a part of our state’s budget into the constitution thus limiting the budgeting authority of the Legislature?  It is the Legislature’s responsibility to work with the Governor to craft an annual balanced budget to meet the needs of our state.  Through the Legislature, all needs (including environmental) are considered, debated, and approved by our elected representatives, not just those of a single special interest.  Californians have already made the mistake of approving the placement of so many spending mandates into their constitution they now flirt with bankruptcy as a consequence.  Florida should avoid repeating that mistake.

Third, have you considered the impact decreasing acreages of taxable private property will have on local needs such as education, roads, infrastructure, and public safety?  When property is moved from private ownership to government ownership, it is moved off the tax rolls.  Less taxable property means less tax revenue. Local governments will have the choice to cut back their spending or raise property taxes.  Which decision do you think they’ll make?

Fourth, do you know that most groups endorsing this amendment are special interests pushing an environmentalist agenda?  Their petition and campaign has been funded and directed in large part by a Boston-based 501(c)(4).  The Conservation Campaign and The Trust for Public Land have been directly involved in one-quarter of all US conservation finance measures since 1996, generating $35 billion in new public funding for land conservation.  They anticipate Amendment One will generate $18B for Florida, one of their top priority targets.  Floridians should beware of any outside special interest group spending and seeking to influence such huge amounts of money.

Fifth, does government ownership of land enhance wise purchasing practices to protect taxpayer money, good stewardship maintenance of land, or making more land open to the public?  US Congressmen representing the state of Utah (87% federally owned) will tell you “No.”  Too many acres of government owned land are either uncared for or off limits to citizens. Despite efforts to regain ownership and use of their land, the federal government continues to say “No.”

The American free market system encourages willing buyers and sellers to transact agreements and there is a place for government to own limited amounts of land.  But, government should not be handed enormous amounts of tax payer money to buy and control land.

The American dream was founded upon the principle of private citizens owning and using property as a protection against the potential tyranny of the state.  Increased government ownership threatens that principle with no guarantees of better land stewardship.

Alternative ways exist to conserve land.  For example, rather than buying private farms and ranches, former Florida Commissioner of Agriculture, Charles Bronson, has suggested the state could simply buy conservation rights.  The cost would be much less while keeping farms and ranches in production and on the tax rolls.

Purpose driven, targeted conservation can have value for our state. But, Amendment One brings many dangers to our state and is promoted by very driven and well-funded special interest groups.  A huge amount of money put into the hands of political appointees, who could be influenced by special interests, for a big government spending program is a recipe for bureaucratic waste and fraud. These questions should be considered before writing an $18 B check to Amendment One advocates.



Dan Peterson

Executive Director

Coalition for Property Rights
http://proprights.com/amendment-one-cpr-oped


ICLEI & Agenda 21 BS in a feel good package. $18Bil in my tax dollars for the inept clowns in Tallahassee to squander over a 20 year period. NOPE

Voting NO on every thing.  Keeping the nose out of the tent is the only thing these flea, lice, and plague carrying beasts understand.

My coworkers mother is on some conservation thing and he said its more to help fund the landowners who try to conserve.... they have a ranch on thousands of acres and said its to help people like them build fences and stuff to keep panthers out . I know they try to keep the wild wild and dont let hunters on their farm.

I dont want to put people out of their homes, he said it wouldnt. I was thinking they would Eminent Domain people out of their homes but he said they wouldnt.

But thats his opinion. I dont really know if he really knows or not

I plan on voting NO to all of them- none of them make sense to me.

Amendments usually mean the state wants more money.

I was going to vote no on them all as well.....is that the way the hive is going?

1. No
2. Yes
3. No

thanks for the heads up OP

all you need to do is go to desoto park's north beach now that's been destroyed beyond redemption to see the gov cannot responsibly care for the public good.  

incase you don't know desoto north beach has been deforested all the autrilian cypress and mangroves removed for over 200 meters the par k will not survive a few good hurricanes it's done

Just look who's supporting amendment 1... Enough said. Vote no!

Doper Voter.

Prohibitionist

Morganite

   Fourth post nailed !  

   Give them money specifically for conservation so that they can divert more of the General Revenue funds to their pet projects.

 LOL!  All you need to do is to look at the roads, the schools, health care, social security or ANYTHING else that the government has it's fingers into in order to see so that they can't manage ANYTHING!

...ouch!

does it:
expand government power or curtail it?  

if yes, then no.  If no, then yes.  

NO, Yes, ?

The saddest part is Florida voters are a cross section of the typical Low info/No info typical American voter.

No doubt, all these amendments will pass with wide margins.

Absolutely no, no, no

I generally vote no on all amendments because the amendment process in FL is a joke. We should not be amending the state constitution with all this crap.

get outta here with that crazy talk, constitutional protection for pigs is a top priority

 

Well, every once in a while we get a real valid issue - like pregnant pigs.

I have allot of fishing friends on facebook pushing for amendment 1 to pass and sharing FB videos. Allot of conservation groups are pushing for it and each time I say something against it I get jumped on

It will pass...

blind following the blind.  The FL duck hunting group I'm in is against it, they can see it for what it is.  Those guys need to realize these "conservation lands" have no requirements to improve access for hunting/fishing/hiking etc

 

Voted NO on all of them.  Generally, my answer to more government is always a big NO!!!!

It adds government with no estimate of cost.

NO fucking way I was voting for that.

Our county had a 1 cent sales tax for "Lands for You". They bought several large parcels that years latter sit idle with "No Trespassing, Preserve Area"
signs on them. No on 1.

1. No
2. Hell NO
3. No

R all the way otherwise and yes to the retention of all the judges.

A vote for CC is a vote for Obama and his policies, every single one of them including his anti 2nd Amendment position.

Fucking feel good law to lure you in with the promise of protecting the environment. Who wouldn't want to do that. I almost voted for it, luckily my paranoia of any "good" the gov wants to do made me vote otherwise.

Like was said, no idea on the end cost. Lets just vote for it to find out! Weeee!

It's sad seeing anybody voting No on 2. Just means that Florida still has a bunch of old uneducated people still. Do your research on how much it helps people with serious medical needs.   Also No on 1.

sarcasm

  med MJ is a scam this one in particular is awful it is meant to help no one and will generate no tax revenue it is only on the ballot to get seems and anti republican libertarians out.

to be honest if it was a heavy tax recreational use law I might think about it but this BS med mj is just a load of BS

Agreed.  If MJ is so great why don't they just synthesize the chemicals and give it in pill form for medical use?  No need to put it in brownies or smoke it.

This. I'de gladly vote for a medical MJ bill that specified smoking it was still illegal, but pill form and capsules could be used to threat the Johnson's kid with whatever disease he/she has.

I found out last week from another anti-2 person, that there is a pill already out there.  Marinol.  I have no idea what the pros/cons are of the pill vs MJ for medical use.

Here is 10 of them already out there.  http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000883

They can...chemicals are absorbed differently though.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/smoked-pot-and-thc-pills-both-work-pain-study-finds

More: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-the-pot-pill-work/

If the amendment was plainly worded to allow MJ for medicine use under a doctor's supervision then more people would have voted for it.

However, the wording was ambiguous and it was clear it was to be a first step towards legalization for recreational use and the last thing Florida needs are more potheads. It has been a disaster in Colorado.

I agree.  It wasn't explained well to voters well at all.

Heck some areas that do have access stay locked year round or you need a permit (Mary Dexter unit in the lake George wma for example) ...along with the closed areas in the onf (granted that's fed land) ..

Fences for panther's ...really lmao.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I voted NO.   I seem to have been in the minority though.

And how many other states on the east cost have this? I am all for national legalization, but at the state level, you're asking for a massive influx of MJ refugees if it passed only here.

2 failed / move along ... nothing to see